Case law

Flood v. Riggs

80 Cal. App. 3d 138 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1978

*154 It is an equally well accepted principle that in interpreting modern constitutions, their provisions will be presumed to be self-executing and to be given effect without legislation, unless a contrary intention is clearly … We cannot indulge in such sheer conjecture as suggested by respondents in an otherwise unconvincing effort to reconcile the language contained in the several statutes which is clearly repugnant to the constitutional provision

People v. Aleman

California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2016

The challenge was very clearly race neutral and conformed to Wheeler/Batson standards. … The jury was informed that Cabral had immunity, but was not protected from a perjury charge.

People v. Bermudez

California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 2020

In the course of seeking to qualify him as an expert in dirk recognition, the prosecutor asked, “what is a dirk?” … She also testified about five predicate offenses establishing Eastside Trece as a criminal street gang.

Ludolph v. Board of Police Commissioners

30 Cal. App. 2d 211 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1938

when making depositions or testifying before any court, officer, or competent tribunal, or before the grand jury, or the Board of Police Commissioners will conduct themselves with dignity, courtesy and respect, and state clearly … On August 31, 1937, when respondent’s case came on regularly for judgment three new commissioners had been appointed and qualified in the place and stead of the members comprising the board when respondent was found guilty

GALLANIS-POLITIS v. Medina

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 701 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 2007

She clearly knew her investigation and report were related to the pending litigation. … The significant points are these: —The litigation privilege derives from common law principles establishing a defense to the tort of defamation. (Rusheen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1057 .)

Angulo v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 2025

Reliance on the MOU to establish additional eligibility criteria was improper. Defendant provided exhibits showing his military service of six months. He was honorably discharged. … This provision clearly applies to Penal Code section 1170.9. Standard 11 is entitled Military Diversion. It notes that military diversion was established by the enactment of Penal Code section 1001.80.

S. Cal. Edison Co. v. STATE WATER RES. CTRL. BD.

116 Cal. App. 3d 751 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1981

The regional board's order is clearly insufficient in this respect. … Since the Board's showing in this respect is clearly inadequate its reliance on standard provision No. 6 is misplaced.

Estrada v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

58 Cal. App. 4th 1458 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 5, 1997

; and courts will not depart from such construction unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized. … By this latter holding, we impliedly held that a compromise and release could bar such a claim, if worded clearly enough.

Solvang Municipal Improvement District v. Board of Supervisors

112 Cal. App. 3d 545 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1980

Clearly, the Board acted contrary to law in refusing to levy the special assessment the District asked it to make. … It then concludes that only voter-approved special assessments enjoy the exception of subdivision (b) from the 1 percent limitation on taxation established by subdivision (a).

P. ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rubin

California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2021

Under the anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant ordinarily has the burden of establishing a plaintiff’s claims arise from its protected activity; if the defendant met its burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish … If we protect the reports and claims under section 425.16 because they eventually could be used in connection with an official proceeding, we would effectively be providing immunity for any kind of criminal fraud so long

People v. M.V.

225 Cal. App. 4th 1495 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2014

As a general rule, a child who qualifies as both a dependent and a ward of the juvenile court cannot be both. (§ 241.1, subd. … Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 783 [plea to filing a forged instrument may be challenged when death certificate at issue did not qualify as an instrument].)

Brown v. Crandall

198 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 2011

We affirm the judgment if the amended petition fails to plead, or the County negates, any essential element, or if the allegations “ ‘ “clearly disclose some defense or bar to recovery.” ’ ” (Holiday Matinee, at p. 1421, … To the extent the County relies on assets in Brown’s retirement account, the matters subject to judicial notice do not establish as a matter of law that applicants may not spend down assets to qualify under the County’s standards

Kramer v. Intuit Inc.

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 2004

Intuit’s rebate program does not require a subsequent purchase because the consumer has three purchase options to qualify for the rebate. … Only one of those options involves the purchase of the qualifying product, TurboTax software, after the purchase of the Quicken software.

People Ex Rel. Pennington v. City of Richmond

141 Cal. App. 2d 107 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1956

This is a fact which it would seem reasonable for the city council to take into consideration when discharging its duty of establishing and designating the voting precincts as provided in section 35126. … The doctrine which requires an appellant to stay with the theory upon which he tried the case, clearly applies here. 6 *119 (See 3 Witkin, Cal.Proc. 2264-2267.)

Hyde v. Wilde

51 Cal. App. 82 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 1921

Plaintiffs, alleging themselves to he duly qualified and registered voters within the municipal limits of the city of San Diego, brought this proceeding against the mayor and common council of said city to compel the council … We think clearly that no such ordinance could be adopted which would have such general effect. It would fall within the class of matters as to which the court said in Thompson v.

People v. Salvador

11 Cal. App. 5th 584 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2017

The Attorney General naturally drew our attention to two passages from that opinion: “[T]he One Strike law establishes a floor—a minimum term a qualifying defendant must serve—but does not require sentencing under the statute … Replace “the Three Strikes law” with “the STEP Act,” and the Attorney General sees the latter passage as clearly allowing the 10-year enhancements to remain on the life terms.

Wertin v. Franchise Tax Board

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 644 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1998

Their November 21, 1994, letter to the FTB clearly stated “this letter constitutes a claim for refund” of the amount of taxes the Wertins were paying under protest. … of qualified attorneys.

People v. Garcia

California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 2020

Calhoun testified under a grant of immunity. During closing argument, appellant’s counsel said: “In order to rise to the level of second-degree murder, there has to be an intent to kill . . . . … Our opinion is evidence in the record of conviction that establishes the victims of the 1992 evasion conviction were not accomplices, and therefore the evasion conviction qualifies as a prior strike”].)

Samantha T. v. Superior Court

197 Cal. App. 4th 94 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 6, 2011

The record shows there are 28 local qualified families willing to adopt the minors as a sibling pair. … But the record clearly establishes that benefit is far outweighed by the immediate disruption to relationships which are important to the minors at this point in their lives and the potential for conflict between Samantha

Haydel v. Morton

8 Cal. App. 2d 730 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 12, 1935

Plaintiff was the trusted manager and bookkeeper of the Morton *734 Hospital, a corporation, in which defendant owned all of the stock other than a few qualifying shares. … be noted, however, that on page 285 of the opinion it was said “The cited case and the case at bar, in each of which the jury either inadvertently or by some *737 mischance omitted to assess the compensatory damages, are clearly